Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash
Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car?
I just see agreements with the premise of the Wiki.
The added "it only looks like a rubbish heap, but really it's a super advanced spaceship" isn't very compelling, to me.
And I just see someone ignoring the arguments presented. First off all, those aren;t agreements, they're observations about "trashiness" in general and what it means in relation to function, it doesn't mean we agree with you. Second, the premises of the wiki are faulty. It's based on one photograph. We all know what the FAQ says about photographs.
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
What happened to that diehard zeteticism of yours that you, the glorious leader of TFES, would stoop down to the level of accepting a photograph as evidence? What wanton hypocrisy! Have you ever observed the lunar lander in person, did you go up to it and personally inspect the parts? Did you find scotch tape and curtain rods? If you didn't, how can you conclusively say that the lunar lander is just a big prop?
Second, this is a point you've not addressed, but what's up with the quotes at the bottom of the wiki page? Is that supposed to be evidence? The opinions of random people on the Internet is not evidence, they're just opinions and it only further degrades the wiki page.